MIDLINE II-Ti M421312cRecalls & reported problems
Centinel Spine, LLC · Class 2 · Implant
Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 4
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 4
- Recalls naming it
- 0
Summary
The FDA's MAUDE database contains 4 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00815101021867), received between Sep 19, 2019 and Sep 19, 2019 — classified as 4 injuries.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Device Appears to Trigger Rejection” (4 reports).
Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.
Most reported problems
Device problems
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem4
- Device Appears to Trigger Rejection4
Patient problems
- Local Reaction4
Recent adverse event reports
The 4 most recent of 4 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjurySep 19, 2019Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS COMMUNICATED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS TO BE PERFORMED FOR A MIDLINE II IMPLANTATION THAT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2016. THE IMPLANTATION INCLUDED A MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS AND ADDITIONAL POSTERIOR HARDWARE FROM AN ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER. FOLLOW-UP IMAGING NOTED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A REACTION AROUND THE ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER'S TITANIUM PEDICLE SCREWS AND TO A LESSER EXTENT AROUND THE MIDLINE II-TI AND STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS CONFIRMED AND TOOK PLACE ON (B)(6) 2017 TO REMOVE ALL TITANIUM DEVICES AND REPLACING WITH PEEK ONLY AND ALLOGRAFT. THE INITIAL CONTACT FORM WAS RECEIVED ON 10/10/17 CONFIRMING THAT THE REACTION WAS POTENTIALLY CAUSED BY AN ALLERGIC REACTION TO THE TITANIUM. THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED BY AN ALLERGIST. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY AND THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED TO BE DOING WELL. THIS REPORT IS BEING SUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE COMPLETED REVISION SURGERY INDICATING THE POSSIBILITY OF ALLERGIC REACTION TO TITANIUM. THIS REPORT IS 4 OF 4 FOR 1 MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE ABO SCREWS.
Patient problems: Local Reaction
MAUDE report 9088354 ↗InjurySep 19, 2019Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS COMMUNICATED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS TO BE PERFORMED FOR A MIDLINE II IMPLANTATION THAT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2016. THE IMPLANTATION INCLUDED A MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS AND ADDITIONAL POSTERIOR HARDWARE FROM AN ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER. FOLLOW-UP IMAGING NOTED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A REACTION AROUND THE ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER'S TITANIUM PEDICLE SCREWS AND TO A LESSER EXTENT AROUND THE MIDLINE II-TI AND STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS CONFIRMED AND TOOK PLACE ON (B)(6) 2017 TO REMOVE ALL TITANIUM DEVICES AND REPLACING WITH PEEK ONLY AND ALLOGRAFT. THE INITIAL CONTACT FORM WAS RECEIVED ON (B)(6) 2017 CONFIRMING THAT THE REACTION WAS POTENTIALLY CAUSED BY AN ALLERGIC REACTION TO THE TITANIUM. THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED BY AN ALLERGIST. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY AND THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED TO BE DOING WELL. THIS REPORT IS BEING SUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE COMPLETED REVISION SURGERY INDICATING THE POSSIBILITY OF ALLERGIC REACTION TO TITANIUM. THIS REPORT IS 3 OF 4 FOR 1 MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE ABO SCREWS.
Patient problems: Local Reaction
MAUDE report 9088351 ↗InjurySep 19, 2019Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS COMMUNICATED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS TO BE PERFORMED FOR A MIDLINE II IMPLANTATION THAT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2016. THE IMPLANTATION INCLUDED A MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS AND ADDITIONAL POSTERIOR HARDWARE FROM AN ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER. FOLLOW-UP IMAGING NOTED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A REACTION AROUND THE ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER'S TITANIUM PEDICLE SCREWS AND TO A LESSER EXTENT AROUND THE MIDLINE II-TI AND STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS CONFIRMED AND TOOK PLACE ON (B)(6) 2017 TO REMOVE ALL TITANIUM DEVICES AND REPLACING WITH PEEK ONLY AND ALLOGRAFT. THE INITIAL CONTACT FORM WAS RECEIVED ON 10/10/2017 CONFIRMING THAT THE REACTION WAS POTENTIALLY CAUSED BY AN ALLERGIC REACTION TO THE TITANIUM. THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED BY AN ALLERGIST. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY AND THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED TO BE DOING WELL. THIS REPORT IS BEING SUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE COMPLETED REVISION SURGERY INDICATING THE POSSIBILITY OF ALLERGIC REACTION TO TITANIUM. THIS REPORT IS 2 OF 4 FOR 1 MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE ABO SCREWS.
Patient problems: Local Reaction
MAUDE report 9088350 ↗InjurySep 19, 2019Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Device Appears to Trigger Rejection; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
IT WAS COMMUNICATED THAT A REVISION SURGERY WAS TO BE PERFORMED FOR A MIDLINE II IMPLANTATION THAT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2016. THE IMPLANTATION INCLUDED A MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS AND ADDITIONAL POSTERIOR HARDWARE FROM AN ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER. FOLLOW-UP IMAGING NOTED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A REACTION AROUND THE ALTERNATIVE MANUFACTURER'S TITANIUM PEDICLE SCREWS AND TO A LESSER EXTENT AROUND THE MIDLINE II-TI AND STALIF MIDLINE SCREWS. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS CONFIRMED AND TOOK PLACE ON (B)(6) 2017 TO REMOVE ALL TITANIUM DEVICES AND REPLACING WITH PEEK ONLY AND ALLOGRAFT. THE INITIAL CONTACT FORM WAS RECEIVED ON (B)(6) 2017 CONFIRMING THAT THE REACTION WAS POTENTIALLY CAUSED BY AN ALLERGIC REACTION TO THE TITANIUM. THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED BY AN ALLERGIST. THE REVISION SURGERY WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY AND THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED TO BE DOING WELL. THIS REPORT IS BEING SUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE COMPLETED REVISION SURGERY INDICATING THE POSSIBILITY OF ALLERGIC REACTION TO TITANIUM. THIS REPORT IS 1 OF 4 FOR 1 MIDLINE II-TI CAGE AND 3 X STALIF MIDLINE ABO SCREWS.
Patient problems: Local Reaction
MAUDE report 9088312 ↗
Other Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar devices
- PIVOX™ Oblique Lateral Spinal System 2161001Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. · Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, lumbar182 reports
- IdentiTi 232-10-85-300Alphatec Spine, Inc. · Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, lumbar1 recall8 reports
- IdentiTi 232-10-85-250Alphatec Spine, Inc. · Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, lumbar1 recall5 reports
- IdentiTi 132-10-85-300Alphatec Spine, Inc. · Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, lumbar1 recall3 reports
- MectaLIF Anterior 03.30.301Medacta International SA · Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 recall2 reports
- IdentiTi 232-10-85-350Alphatec Spine, Inc. · Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, lumbar1 recall2 reports
- IdentiTi 232-11-90-350Alphatec Spine, Inc. · Intervertebral fusion device with integrated fixation, lumbar1 recall1 report
- MectaLIF Anterior 03.30.302Medacta International SA · Intervertebral Fusion Device With Integrated Fixation, Lumbar1 recall1 report
Sources and updates
- Device record: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026 · View this device in AccessGUDID ↗
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026 · each report above links to its original FDA record
- Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
- Page last rebuilt: Oct 18, 2026. Data downloaded through openFDA, which notes it is not validated for clinical or regulatory use.
How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page